Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!thyme!kaleb From: kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware Subject: Re: 486SX - Intel now telling lies Message-ID: <1991May30.164751.16585@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov> Date: 30 May 91 16:47:51 GMT References: <1991May29.191233.18863@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <1991May29.212337.7684@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov> <1991May29.230433.10095@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu> Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA Lines: 64 In an article rogerhef@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Roger Heflin) writes: >In an article I wrote: > >>Considering street price for a full up 486 is about US$700-800, why >>would anyone want to pay $300 for the 486SX, plus $700 for the 487SX? > >>Personally, I think if Intel can produce a i486, disable the FPU, and sell >>it for $250, while selling a i486 without disabling the FPU for $800 >>(whether they call it an i486 or an i487SX is academic), that the whole >>world should punish Intel for their arrogance by refusing to buy any >>i486 product whatsoever. > >You are assuming that the FPU that was disabled was good, especially since the >coprocessor part of the chip takes a a larger portion of the area of the chip >than the 486sx part, it means that any error in production is more likely to >be in that area of the chip. Since they also will probably not be able to >meet the demand for the 486 it would also not make sense to go disabling chips >that could be sold for $800 so they could sell them for $250. It probably >wasn't, since using processor chips with bad coprocessors would increase >their yield and therefore their profile from a single run. >Also you are assuming that everyone wants a coprocessor, and >much of the market is made up of people running things like WP that need a >fast machine and lots of memory, but have no use for the coprocessor at >all. That is what they are targeting with th i486sx, is the people that >are not likely to need a coprocessor, but if they get a i486sx and later >find that they need a coprocessor they have the option if they don't want >to upgrade their machine, but with the 486sx the entire objective is to >never get a coprocessor, it is for people that have no use for one, from >this standpoint it makes sense. Well, Intel certainly isn't advertising that this is what they're doing! If anything, they're doing just the opposite. Obviously it doesn't make sense to disable a perfectly good FPU. Does disabling a bad FPU make sense either? Whether the FPU is good or not, Intel is saying that the chip can be made, and sold at a profit for $250. It costs *them* the same to produce, per unit, whether the FPU passes QC or not. Up to now, buyers of full-up i486s have been carrying the cost of the failed units in the price of the good units. Is Intel going to reduce the price of good units now that bad units can be unloaded in the bargain basement? Are they going to give me a refund on the i486 I already bought? Of course they're not, on both counts. As for blanket statements like "...some people have no use for one..." This is patently false. Fifteen years ago, people said the same thing about a personal/home/desktop computer! Ten years ago, they said it about hard disk drives and GUIs. (Keep in mind that we're talking micro-processors here, not mini or main frame computers.) Five years ago they said it about... Well, I think you get the point. From a purely economic standpoint, everyone should have a FPU, but everyone won't *until* the marginal utility of having one is greater than the cost of aquiring one. Said another way, they won't get one until it starts costing them money by not having it. If FPUs were $5, there'd be no reason not to have one; even to do word processing. Don't think that GUI, WYSIWYG, or even conventional word processors can't or won't benefit from a FPU. The above are my opinions alone, and do not reflect those of my employer. -- Kaleb Keithley kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov No flashy sig. No clever quips. No famous quotes. This space for rent.